Several months ago, a friend asked me the origin of the word India and “Hindu”. That question spurred this brief piece of research.
Most experts agree today that the name “India” was derived from the river Indus (in today’s Pakistan). But the name “Indus” itself has a fascinating history behind it.
In ancient times, the entire Indus river system (along with its seven tributaries – Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej, Jhelum, Beas and the now extinct River Saraswati[i]) and the area it covered, used to be called “Sapta Sindhu[ii]” i.e. the land of seven rivers (“Sindhu” means river in Sanskrit).
The word “Sindhu” not only referred to the river system and adjoining area but also became the label to denote the culture that had developed along its valleys (In fact, continuing archaeological evidence suggests that the “Indus Valley Civilization” should more accurately be called the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization considering the land mass where it developed).
The corruption of “Sindhu” into “Hindu” can be traced back to journeys made by early Persian explorers from the Northwest who due to the peculiarities of their own language aspirated the “S” sound in “Sindhu” to make the word “Hindu”
Thus to world beyond, the area around the Saraswati-Sindhu rivers and its culture became to be known as the area of “Hindus” (thus the name Hindustan which literally means the land of “Hindus”)
This nomenclature stuck and became particularly prevalent after the invasion and conquest of “India” by Mughals. The Mughals (based on the earlier Persian terminology) used the term “Hindu” to refer to the original inhabitants of the land and this label became the way to distinguish native/indigenous/ancient culture form that of the invaders.
About 2500 years ago, when the Greeks first reached the river plains of Punjab, they borrowed the name of the region from the Persians and simply modified it to “Indos”. “Indos” later morphed into “Indus” in Latin – by which name the river is still known in the West. The Romans began to call the whole land mass after this river and thus the name “India” came to stay – which has been the form used by Europeans over the ages.
It is clear from the above that the word “Hindu” simply meant (someone living in India) “Indian” or (something) related to India.
The term Hindu did not signify any religion or set of religious beliefs but was really a label for a specific landmass. At best the word simply implied someone associated with (or dwelling in) the geographical area the boundaries of which were roughly covered by the Saraswati-Sindhu rivers and their tributaries.
In the words of Dr Morales, “the term “Hindu” is not a term that is inherent to the religion itself. Rather, the term is known to have been first coined by the ancient Persians, who were culturally, religiously, and perspectively extrinsic to the culture. The term was first used by these ancient Persians in order to conveniently designate the ancient Vedic spiritual culture, and was mistakenly used to refer to the Vedic religion as primarily a geographic and ethnic phenomenon, more than as a religio-philosophical world-view.To the ancient Persians, the word “Hindu” simply referred to the culture, people, religion and practices of the peoples who lived on the other side of the Sindhu River. In the ancient Avestan Persian language ’s’ grammatically became ‘h’. Thus, the Persians pronounced the name of this river “Hindhu”, rather than “Sindhu”. Thus, ironically, the currently used word “Hindu” is itself a corruption of the Persian word “Hindhu”, which is in turn a corruption of the term “Sindhu”, which is itself only referring to a river, and not a religion! Thus when the word “Hindu” is used today to refer to the ancient religion of India, the term is in actuality a corruption of a corruption of a word whose meaning is irrelevant to begin with.In his essay, “Word as a Weapon”, Dr Morales has further examined the labels “Hindu” (and “Hinduism”) and suggested alternative terms.In my review of his essay, http://hindu_dharma.blogspot.com/2005/11/excerpts-from-word-as-weapon.html, I had offered the following suggestion, which I believe is even more relevant today:Let us henceforth decide to refer to ancient Indian achievements as Hindu achievements (which is what they are). And let us all insist on calling our religions “Sanatana Dharma” rather than a sterile “Hinduism”.
“Bharat”, that is India
India’s “official” name is Bharat – and this is accorded equal primacy as the word India in the Constitution. In fact the First Clause of the Constitution begins with the words, “India, that is Bharat”.
There is a general mis-conception that India (or to be more accurate, “Bharat”) as a nation did not exist until the British brought hundreds of princely states and fiefdoms under central rule. This is false and historically inaccurate – those of you who have read History would be aware that Samrat Ashok’s kingdom probably had the largest expanse of land of any kingdom in ancient times and of course included almost all of the Indian sub-continent – i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of neighbouring states such as Nepal and Afghanistan.
In the words of Shri Srinivasan Kalyanaraman, “For those who think that the nation of Bharat is a British creation, they should be reminded about Rigveda verse by Vis’vamitra RV 3.53.12: vis’va_mitrasya raks.ati brahmedam bharatam janam, (this mantra of Vis’vamitra will protect the nation of the people of Bharatam). In Tamil bharatam (written pa_ratam) refers to the Hindu ra_s.t.ra. ” http://hindu_dharma.blogspot.com/2006/02/india-that-is-bharat.html
There are also references in ancient literature, including the “Bhagavad-Gita” to large parts of the landmass that we now call India, as “Bharat” or “Bharatavarsha”. See e.g. an article written by Shri Bhatnagar at http://humnri.com/HumZ/Articles/Article.aspx?number=15181
“…from Scanto V of Srimad Bhagavatam -Chapter 19 -The description of Jambudwipa concluded:
The people of Bharatavarsa touch with their body too the water of these rivers, which purify them by their very names.(17)Candravasa Tamraparni, Avatoda, Krtamala, Vaihayasi, Kaveri, Veni, Payaswini, Sarkaavarta, Tungabhadra, Krsna, Venya, Bhimarathi, Godavari, Nirvindhya, Payosni, Tapi, Reva, Surasa, Narmada Carmanvati (and) Sindhu, two big rivers — Andha (Brahmaputra) and Sona (Sone) — Mahanadi, Vedasmrti, Rsikulya, Trisama, Kausiki, Mandakini, Yamuna, Saraswati, Drsadvati, Gomati, Sarayu, Rodhaswati Saptavati, Susoma, Satadru, Candrabhaga, Marudvrdha, Vitasta, Asikni (and) Viswa are (the names of) the principal rivers.(18)
But all this would be irerelevant if we ourselves forget our name – so let us make an effort to remember (and to make others aware) that India does have an indigenous name – “Bharat” – and let us be proud of it.
.
[i] The first five of these rivers gave “Punj – Aab” its name – the land of five rivers
Related Posts:
More on origin & usage of the word “Hindu”
This must be the last word on origin of “Hindu”…
.
See also this comment explaining the origin of the word, “BhArat” (the real name for India)
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/12/01/source-of-satyameva-jayate/#comment-10009
.
Filed under: A Hindu Identity, An Indian Identity, Ancient Indian History, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Medieval Indian History, Sanatana Dharma, Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization | Tagged: Bharat, Hindu, India, Word Origin
Namaste!
I am very happy that you presented this article on the misconception of the word Hindu. I am glad to know that the Religion is Sanatan Dharm and not Hinduism as proclaimed by some people.
I had to do a presentation on Sanatan Dharm and my head was almost “bitten off” by one of my classmate.
I will take pleasure in showing her this article.
Thank you for putting up such relevant documents to enlight people on what is right from wrong.
Nirmala,
Dhanyawaad….and I am glad that you found the article useful.
You may wish to look at a recent post on this topic: http://hindudharma.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/origin-of-the-word-hindu/
B Shantanu
Namaskaram,’
I am very glad about this article , history of India as India does have an indigenous name – “Bharat” – and I am proud to be an Indian, with great culture & Religious land.
Andhariki Dhanyavaadaamlu….
Srinivas, Namaskar and thank you.
You may also want to read this article, “This must be the last word on origin of the word, “Hindu“.
Join us in the journey to re-build our nation…
Jai Hind, Jai Bharat.
Even before Asokha forged India’s greatest empire, India was called Bharatavarsha after the head of the Bharata clan. This shows that a sense of oneness did exist in those times. Oneness in the sense, people had an awareness of belonging to one entity, though they lived in different kingdoms and republics.
Though these kingdoms and republics were sovereign, they did form quasi-confederations in times of foreign invasion. This is quite obvious in the response to Alexander’s invasion, when independant outlying kingdoms and republics in the northwest frequently troubled and embarassed Alexander as he marched further into India. Unless there’s a sense of oneness or common need, there can be no confederation type behaviour.
THANKS….I PUT THIS QUESTION ON ORKUT..AND SUMONE FRWARDED ME TO THIS LINK…..
WE SHUD KNOW OUR ORIGIN..OUR HISTORY….I WAS ENLINGHTENING….ELSE I THOT THE BRITS GAVE US THE NAme “INDIA”…..
AND YA PPL ARE FORGETTING BHARAT….DUNNO WHY!!!!
Shantanuji, this is indeed a brilliant attempt. You have taken a direction which had to come!
This article might be of interest. I found its quite interesting and informative paper.
The Unity of India
http://www.svabhinava.org/HinduCivilization/DileepKaranth/UnityofIndia.pdf
If you never heard of and seen the second stanga of “Jana Gana Mana” (national anthem), of Rabindranath Tagore, here you can see it.
It says: The Spirit of India came to permeate the diverse lands and peoples that make up India. It is to this Spirit that the poet Rabindranath Tagore pays tribute in the national anthem, whose second stanza reads:
Aharaha tava ahvāna prachārita, śuni tava udāra vāni,
Hindu-Bauddha-Śikha-jaina-pārasika-musalmāna-khristāni
Purava-paścima-āse tava singhāsana pāse,
Prema-hāra haya gāmthā
Jana gana aikya vidhāyaka jaya he bhārata bhāgya vidhāta
Jaya he, jaya he, jaya he, jaya jaya jaya jaya he!
Day and night your call resounds,
And to the sound of your loving voice,
Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Muslim and Christian,
Approach your throne from east and west,
And weave for you a garland of love.
Unifier of the peoples, thou, dispenser of India’s destiny!
Victory, victory, victory to Thee!
Regards,
Bharat
Bharat: Thank you for the link and the brief description of the second stanza of the National Anthem.
I will look up the article you have recommended.
Jai Hind, Jai Bharat.
Bharat is actually combination of three words: Bhava (BHA), Raga (RA) and Tala(TA).
Pranita,
Thanks for your comment. Do you have a reference to this and can you please elaborate on the significance?
I am not very familiar with these terms in the context of classical music.
Thanks.
Dear Shri. Shantanu,
Excellent subject to have a look it into and debate upon. Coming to the subject I do not know how far it will suit this blog and its readers, but if you lok at south india and when one starts a homam, the Kartha says the following:
Mamo partha, samastha duritha jayadhwara Sri Parameswara preethiatham, subhe shobane, muhurthe, adhyabrahmanaha dwithiye pararthe swethavarahakalpe vaivasvatha manvanthare ashtavimasathi thame kaliyuge pratheme pade jambudwepe BHARATHA VARUSHE BHARATHA KANDE merohe etc. etc.
This goes to show that from time immemmorial it is only Bharat and nothing else. Maybe just like the the finding of the word “Juggurnaut” in english arising out of the massive Sri Jagannath Rath, somewhere, sometime, just as it has been stated, “Sindhu has become Hindu” and the “INDIAN WESTERNERS” who have no individuality of their own if they disown the supremacy of the west have kept it up
Regards,
V.C.Krishnan
Dear Shantanu: Very educative piece, this one. I am tempted to add, like the proverbial squirrel of Ramayana, my bit to the topic.
“Bharat = a name for the Republic of India. It is derived from Bharata, a tribe famous in Vedic traditions. Some Indians, particularly, Hindu Nationalists, prefer this name…..” Source – http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Bharata
More material available at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Etymology+of+India
I came across a new construal of the word ‘Bharatiya’ recently and thought of sharing it with you.
Bha = radiance, splendour
Rath = engrossed
Bharatiya = those who remain engrossed in the worship of ‘tej’ (radiance, light etc.). That is to say, Bharatiya is one who is engrossed in spiritual practice. Consequently a ‘seeker’ from any part of the world is a Bharatiya. [Source: http://www.sanatan.org/en/organization.htm ] This may be stretching it a bit too far, perhaps. Is it an attempt by a zealous ‘nationalist’ to superimpose a meaning on a pliant word? The downside with this kind of definition is that most Indians will not be Bharatiyas and many Bharatiyas will not be Indians. I wonder if someone could elucidate whether ascribing such meaning or significance to the word has any legitimacy or sanity. Is such temptingly indiscriminate elasticity in interpretation acceptable or even desirable?
@ Atlantean, Manik and Anirban: I missed thanking you for your comments.
@ V C Krishnan: Do you have a reference for your verse?
@ Nandan: Thought-provoking question: “Is such temptingly indiscriminate elasticity in interpretation acceptable or even desirable?”
My instinct suggests probably not…but let me think and come back to you with a more considered response.
Hi..
good job ..
last night this question popped up in my head… that why our country is called “INDIA” !?… next morning(i.e. now) the first thing i did was started searching for my answer.. and found it in this article…
Hey i was really looking some article like this..can i put it on my blog…along with ur weblink..my purpose is just to spread awarness
These sites may provide more information. Please be careful to extract the right information and ignore/dump the wrong info ( which contain lots of misinfo and disinfo).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata_%28emperor%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bh%C4%81ratavarsha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
And here is a beautiful site, with tons of right information about Bharata, Hindu dharma, culture, history, heritage etc.
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/index_new.htm